An accusation, a rush to judgement and a Boston Red Sox 'Scouts honor'. . .

           The arrest of a Boston Red Sox scout in a Port St. Lucie hotel was stuck at the very bottom of a story by Gordon Edes in the Boston Globe today; a sort of  ‘Oh, and by the way, they arrested a Red Sox scout for ‘lewd and lascivious’ behavior.’ (Not an Edes quote).

Holy Cow. . or Mackerel . .or Guacamole, what was that all about?

So, a little research and there it is in the Globe and Herald and on the MLB Web site - “Red Sox scout . . .arrested.”

They published his name, of course. A mistake I prefer not to make. It is, at the time these reports were published unclear exactly what happened. The citizens that complained about his behavior have their story. The scout has his.

We’ve been through the “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck” story and the “where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire” story, too, but I’m not sure that justice is served one way or another by a rush to judgement. If he did what the indictment said he did, then he deserves the punishment. If, on the other hand, a pair of overwrought teenagers (whose names are deliberately left out of the published accounts) are exaggerating an incident for the publicity or potential money or for whatever motivation you can think of (think ‘teenagers’), then he should be turned loose.

The problem, of course, is figuring out whether he’s guilty or innocent, which a court proceeding, or more likely a bunch of them, will determine or at least adjudicate. But the mere mention of the incident in any public forum has something of a ‘guilt’ effect attached to it. The scout’s guilt or innocence is almost beside the point. Even if he is ultimately judged to be innocent, his name will bear forever, the weight of the accusation itself.

In other words, guilty or innocent, he’s sort of screwed.

I don’t want to cut the guy any slack if he’s guilty. But I’m a little surprised at how quickly one assumes that he is; me, included. Thing just sounds suspicious. Maybe it’s the way they describe it. Two 16-year old girls say they saw something. Two adults say they saw something, too, but these two being over 18, the charge would only be a misdemeanor. The same behavior in front of the teenagers is a felony.

The MLB report does not substantiate a report of very ‘specific’ actions by this scout, as the newspaper accounts do. It’s not just that he did A, about which there is some agreement, but whether he did A and B. Notice, I’m trying to keep the specifics out because I think that they prejudice what otherwise might be clear-thinking about the story and how it plays out in the media.

I don’t know whether this guy is guilty or innocent and while I find it as difficult as anyone not to judge, especially ahead of all facts, I keep thinking that some sort of effort is appropriate.

Ask any priest. The entire institution has been painted with the same ‘bad reputation’ brush as a very small percentage of its members.

I think, too, that the public’s ‘right to know’ has to be balanced against an accused’s reputation, pending the outcome of a trial. Do we really need to publish this guy’s name before his guilt or innocence is established? Do we need to know this so badly that we’re willing to put this entire scout’s life on the line to know all of the salacious details?